How can Jon be a Targaryen if he has a burned hand?Targaryens are not immune to fire. Aerion Brightflame died drinking wildfire. Aegon V and his son Duncan are thought to have died in a fire-related event at Summerhall. Rhaenyra was eaten by Aegon II's dragon, presumably roasted by fire before the dragon took a bite. Viserys died when he was crowned with molten gold. Dany suffered burns from the fire pit incident at the end of A Dance with Dragons. Finally, the author has stated outright that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Jon's burned hand does not mean he is ineligible to be part Targaryen. For more information about the myth of Targaryen fire immunity, see this thread.

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?
Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Alysanne had blue eyes. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?
Much is made over the fact that Arya looks like Lyanna, and Jon looks like Arya. Ned and Lyanna shared similar looks.

How can Jon be half-Targ if he has a direwolf?
Ned's trueborn children are half Stark and half Tully. Being half Tully didn't prevent them from having a direwolf so there is no reason to think being half Targaryen would prevent Jon from having a direwolf. If Lyanna is his mother, then he's still half Stark. Furthermore, there is already a character who is half Targaryen and half blood of the First Men and was a skinchanger: Bloodraven.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?
The evidence that Jon is legitimate is that Targaryens have a history of polygamous marriages which makes it a possibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrived. Even after Ned said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.

But polygamy hadn't been practiced in centuries, is it still even legal?
The practice was never made illegal and there may have been some less prominent examples after Maegor, as stated in this SSM. Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable option.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?
Aerys was sane enough to realize how taking someone hostage works even at the end of the Rebellion, and he would hardly miss the opportunity to bring Ned and Robert in line any time after the situation started to look really serious.Furthermore, regardless of on whose order the Kingsguard might have stayed at Tower of Joy, they would still be in dereliction of their duty to guard the new king.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?
The theory is not obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on first read, most will not. Keep in mind that readers who go to online fan forums, such as this one, represent a very small minority of the A Song of Ice and Fire readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 17 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?
Ned doesn't think about anyone as being his mother. He says the name 'Wylla' to Robert, but does not actively think that Wylla is the mother. He also doesn't think of Jon as his son. There are numerous mysteries in the series, and Jon's parentage is one of those. If Ned thought about Jon being Lyanna's son, it would not be a mystery.

Why should we care who Jon's parents are? Will Jon care? Who cares if he's legitimate?
Once one accepts that the evidence is conclusive and that Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna and that he is most probably legitimate, these become the important questions.

Previous editions:

Please click on the spoiler below to reveal links to all previous editions of this thread.

One of the most common objections to Jon's legitimacy is the suggestion that the KG at the ToJ may have been there because of a standing order, and not necessarily because they were guarding the king.

I know previous iterations of this thread have already pretty much fleshed out the reasons why these objections don't stand up to scrutiny, but I think a more thorough addressing of this point might be needed in the copied post #1.

Ned's natural assumption is that the kingsguard at the tower should be with Viserys at Dragonstone if he is indeed the rightful heir. Their presence simultaneously discredits the idea that Viserys is the true heir and suggests that another heir exists, and is in this very tower.

The common objection is that the above assumption is not sufficient to establish that Jon's legitimacy is the only plausible reason for their presence.

Where the objection fails is in its assertion that all 3 of the kingsguard would prioritize a standing order over the survival of the 283 year old Targaryen dynasty, or that the kingsguard could, under the circumstances, trust that dynasty to the word (by raven) that Viserys was safe with Ser Willem Darry and his small retinue of guards at Dragonstone.

I don't think there's any even plausible way to assert any of the following:

-The survival of the 283 Targaryen dynasty could EVER be secondary to ANYTHING else.

-The kingsguard can entrust the life of the king, half a kingdom away, in the wake of a successful rebellion, to a small retinue of guards not including a single kingsguard knight.

-While prioritizing an order over the dynasty, and entrusting the king's life to Willem Darry, the kingsguard would repeatedly reference the fact that their last stand at the ToJ was motivated by their sacred vows as kingsguard members.

One of the most common objections to Jon's legitimacy is the suggestion that the KG at the ToJ may have been there because of a standing order, and not necessarily because they were guarding the king.

I know previous iterations of this thread have already pretty much fleshed out the reasons why these objections don't stand up to scrutiny, but I think a more thorough addressing of this point might be needed in the copied post #1.

Ned's natural assumption is that the kingsguard at the tower should be with Viserys at Dragonstone if he is indeed the rightful heir. Their presence simultaneously discredits the idea that Viserys is the true heir and suggests that another heir exists, and is in this very tower.

The common objection is that the above assumption is not sufficient to establish that Jon's legitimacy is the only plausible reason for their presence.

Where the objection fails is in its assertion that all 3 of the kingsguard would prioritize a standing order over the survival of the 283 year old Targaryen dynasty, or that the kingsguard could, under the circumstances, trust that dynasty to the word (by raven) that Viserys was safe with Ser Willem Darry and his small retinue of guards at Dragonstone.

I don't think there's any even plausible way to assert any of the following:
-The survival of the 283 Targaryen dynasty could EVER be secondary to ANYTHING else.
-The kingsguard can entrust the life of the king, half a kingdom away, in the wake of a successful rebellion, to a small retinue of guards not including a single kingsguard knight.
-While prioritizing an order over the dynasty, and entrusting the king's life to Willem Darry, the kingsguard would repeatedly reference the fact that their last stand at the ToJ was motivated by their sacred vows as kingsguard members.

Can we dispense with this very common, but unsound objection?

To do that you would need to deal with the following.

1. We know from Jonathor Darry that the King's guards oath required them to obey Rhaegar's orders.

2. We know from the Princess and the Queen that, when given a lawful order, the King's guards will leave the king without King's guards protection so they can fulfill the order. Specifically, Larys Strong, a member of the Small Council, orders Ser Rickard Thorne and Ser Willas Fell of the King's guards to leave King Aegon II in the care of a non-King's guard bastard knight so they can go do something else, and they obey the order. So Dayne, Whent and Hightower would obey Rhaegar's order -- whatever it was -- before going to Dragonstone.

3. We also know from the Princess and the Queen that a dead man's orders survive his death. King Viserys' order that Otto Hightower serve as Hand would survive until the new monarch was formally proclaimed.

4. We know from the Rogue Prince that Viserys has a better claim to the Iron Throne than any son of Rhaegar.

Spoiler

The results of the most recent Great Council are precedent for future similar situations, and the most recent Great Council -- like real life Norman law -- supports Viserys' claim (as the son of a king) over Aegon's or Jon's (supposed) claim as the son of a dead prince.

5. There is no evidence that the King's guards thought that Prince Aegon was dead. Rhaella, Viserys and Aerys are accounted for in Ned's discussion with the King's guards. Prince Aegon is not. If the King's guards think that Aegon may still be alive, Jon cannot be king, since under any analysis Aegon comes before Jon. And, that is why Bloodraven takes Daemon II Blackfyre prisoner rather than killing him in the Mystery Knight -- you can't crown a younger brother while an older brother is still alive. Or, as Robb put it, "Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me."

6. Barristan Selmy makes a point of saying in Dance with Dragons that King's guards protection can be extended to mistresses and bastards. How will this matter to the story if it isn't a reference to the Tower of Joy?

7. Connington makes a point of saying, in Dance with Dragons, that Rhaegar's son Aegon can't take two wives. What is the point of this if not to show that bigamy is disallowed?

8. At the end of the rebellion, Lyanna was the most valuable hostage the Targaryens could hope for. Even if Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar in the beginning, the King's guards' vow to protect Aerys' heir, Viserys, from harm or threat required them to secure the hostage until she could be moved to Dragonstone and used to deter the Barratheon/Stark invasion.

9. Meanwhile, what is the threat to Viserys? He has Willem Darry, the garrison at Dragonstone, and the Targaryen fleet. And he is on an island. Robert has no fleet, and it is more than half a year before he can go after a Dragonstone. The King's guards don't need to rush to Dragonstone in these circumstances.

There is more, but you get the drift...the common objection is not unsound.

Does the legitimacy really matter? As I see it, even if the theory is true, Jon isn't going to the Iron Throne save if the Night's Watch is disbanded.(And I do know that by dying and coming back to life, he could technically fulfill his oath to the Watch and leave without regrets. But I think his honor wouldn't allow it.)

It's far more likely (in my opinion) that his blood would be beneficial in the War on the Others. You know, after being dispersed, all Starks gather at the Wall to kick all undead butts. (Although knowing GRRM there'd be some sort of magic switch flipping and all the Other's would conveniently collapse like the ending of the Avengers, I mean seriously, it seems to me that the man hates writing prolonged battles) So his parentage would be important, but the legitimacy wouldn't...

Lyanna died giving birth to a son, the child Rhaegar had desired for the PtwP.

Fire Eater, yes I left that interesting line out because I wanted to flesh out first the

Spoiler

twisted and malformed babe element. Twice Daemon's children present malformations, and the whole 'blood of the dragon' debate comes to mind. Now, we don't know what kind of malformation affected this particular infant, but if we are dealing again with scales and dragon-like traits, we can maybe focus on the metatextual implications and draw a parallel. In both Daemon's and Rhaegar's cases, in fact, the son they had so long desidered is "half-dragon"...

I can't help but think that, paired with the parallels you note, we are being directed to some conclusion that has significance to his unfolding story.

1. We know from Jonathor Darry that the King's guards oath required them to obey Rhaegar's orders.

Ehm. No. It isn't Rhaegar who orders Jaime to remain in KL. That was a decision made by Aerys. So Aerys ordered Jaime to stay behind. That's what Darry is saying.

3. We also know from the Princess and the Queen that a dead man's orders survive his death. King Viserys' order that Otto Hightower serve as Hand would survive until the new monarch was formally proclaimed.

Not a dead man. A dead King. Important detail

4. We know from the Rogue Prince that Viserys has a better claim to the Iron Throne than any son of Rhaegar.

Spoiler

The results of the most recent Great Council are precedent for future similar situations, and the most recent Great Council -- like real life Norman law -- supports Viserys' claim (as the son of a king) over Aegon's or Jon's (supposed) claim as the son of a dead prince.

Whut?

You are saying that Rhaenys was passed over because Aemon was dead? Rhaenys was passed over because she was a woman, and so were her children. Baelon was chosen because he was Jaehaerys' next male heir, and Viserys was later chosen because he was Baelon's direct heir.

See the difference. Aemon only had a daughter, Rhaegar has two sons. So no, Rhaegar's heir, even after death, remains Aegon, and if Aegon is dead, Jon. Only then would Viserys have been heir to the throne.

5. There is no evidence that the King's guards thought that Prince Aegon was dead. Rhaella, Viserys and Aerys are accounted for in Ned's discussion with the King's guards. Prince Aegon is not. If the King's guards think that Aegon may still be alive, Jon cannot be king, since under any analysis Aegon comes before Jon. And, that is why Bloodraven takes Daemon II Blackfyre prisoner rather than killing him in the Mystery Knight -- you can't crown a younger brother while an older brother is still alive. Or, as Robb put it, "Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me."

The KG knew that Aerys was dead. So they heard about the Sack and what happened during the Sack. The two most important deaths that day were Aerys and Aegon. So they will have known about Aegon's death as well.

6. Barristan Selmy makes a point of saying in Dance with Dragons that King's guards protection can be extended to mistresses and bastards. How will this matter to the story if it isn't a reference to the Tower of Joy?

You are very conveniently forgetting the first part of that quote, where it is stated how a King could choose (but wasn't obligated to do so) extend KG protection to his wife, children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins of lesser degree.

The lovers, mistresses and bastards might be a reference to Aegon IV, who had 9 mistresses of high birth, and several bastards who were raised in KL.

7. Connington makes a point of saying, in Dance with Dragons, that Rhaegar's son Aegon can't take two wives. What is the point of this if not to show that bigamy is disallowed?

Polygamy is not used that often, so not using it is the safest way to go. However, if Rhaegar saw necessity, he would have done so, being driven by the prophecy.

Also important: don't forget the people we're talking about. If Aegon marries a girl to gain support in 300AC, the chance that his first child is born in 301AC exists. Then Dany returns to Westeros. Sure, she can still marry Aegon.. but her child won't sit the IT.

Dany is a Queen in her own right with dragons and an army. Offering her the position of second wife would be an insult. The kind of insult that could spark a war.

8. At the end of the rebellion, Lyanna was the most valuable hostage the Targaryens could hope for. Even if Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar in the beginning, the King's guards' vow to protect Aerys' heir, Viserys, from harm or threat required them to secure the hostage until she could be moved to Dragonstone and used to deter the Barratheon/Stark invasion.

Adn they needed 3 men to keep a sick 16 year old girl in a tower? No. Even if this was the case, at least 1 KG could have gone to Viserys if he truly had been heir.

9. Meanwhile, what is the threat to Viserys? He has Willem Darry, the garrison at Dragonstone, and the Targaryen fleet. And he is on an island. Robert has no fleet, and it is more than half a year before he can go after a Dragonstone. The King's guards don't need to rush to Dragonstone in these circumstances.

In that case, what was the threat to Aegon II? He was on an island as well, and no one knew he was there..

Adn they needed 3 men to keep a sick 16 year old girl in a tower? No. Even if this was the case, at least 1 KG could have gone to Viserys if he truly had been heir.

And its not just 3 men; it's the LC of the KG and Dayne, who by many accounts is supposed to be one of the best swordsmen in Westeros.

The fact the White Bull stays is telling, IMO. If he truly believed that Viserys was now the heir, he'd be on a ship to Dragonstone.

Also, why is Lyanna the most valuable hostage at the end of the rebellion? At the end, the Queen, and 8 yr old boy, and an infant girl are the ones left. And all of them are on Dragonstone. We don't know if any of the KG were in communication with the Queen to receive any sort of orders about Lyanna. The 3 KG are following the last orders of Rhaegar and the vows they swore when they took the white cloak: defend the king.

After having read TRP, I do come away more dubious about the KG and their consistency given Cole's behavior and what actually may have been the true motivation for his actions,(which I found fascinating on its own).
And I think that Dayne and Whent fall into this category for their presence with Rhaegar over Aerys, HOWEVER, it is Hightowers presence that seals the deal.

There is also a massive caveat about both tPatQ and tRP that does not come up enough.

They are books that were written in universe, which adds layers of bias and so much room for subjectivity and inaccuracies by the Maester's who wrote them, as to be nothing more than a outline of events.

How many medieval historians do you trust for 100% accuracy for how many angels can fit through the eye of a needle?

There is also a massive caveat about both tPatQ and tRP that does not come up enough.
They are books that were written in universe, which adds layers of bias and so much room for subjectivity and inaccuracies by the Maester's who wrote them, as to be nothing more than a outline of events.

How many medieval historians do you trust for 100% accuracy for how many angels can fit through the eye of a needle?

So are you saying Richard III wasn't born with a tail and Edward IV wasn't a bastard? 😉

What I want to know is how accurate Ned's fever dream recollection of the ToJ showdown is. I get the impression that people here (not naming names, this is an impression from multiple posts) that people are taking the scene as gospel that that's how it was, when I know I've read that GRRM has pointed out that it was a fever dream and therefore the actual events may not have happened that way.

Also, does abduction and rape have to me mutually inclusive? I know we don't know exactly how Rhaegar and Lyanna ended up together, but I don't think abduction can be ruled out. I think it's the most likely scenario, as in abduction = taken at sword point, and I figure that swords had to have been drawn for the tale to be told that she was abducted (as I doubt that I highborn lady would have been alone wherever she was at the time). However, I don't think that Rhaegar abducting Lyanna automatically means he raped her, nor does it mean that Lyanna cannot have loved him or grown to love him, or even that she was totally unwilling when she was taken.

What I want to know is how accurate Ned's fever dream recollection of the ToJ showdown is. I get the impression that people here (not naming names, this is an impression from multiple posts) that people are taking the scene as gospel that that's how it was, when I know I've read that GRRM has pointed out that it was a fever dream and therefore the actual events may not have happened that way.

Also, does abduction and rape have to me mutually inclusive? I know we don't know exactly how Rhaegar and Lyanna ended up together, but I don't think abduction can be ruled out. I think it's the most likely scenario, as in abduction = taken at sword point, and I figure that swords had to have been drawn for the tale to be told that she was abducted (as I doubt that I highborn lady would have been alone wherever she was at the time). However, I don't think that Rhaegar abducting Lyanna automatically means he raped her, nor does it mean that Lyanna cannot have loved him or grown to love him, or even that she was totally unwilling when she was taken.

I see the fever dream as symbolic, and so the words might not have been the exact words said, but the words are meaningful, and they reflect things Ned knows about the situation in retrospect.

As for abduction, I think there are two kinds: abduction of the woman against her will, and abduction from whatever situation she was in, but in accordance with her will. As in, "Hey Rhaegar, come break me out of this place, willya?" I'm struck by how little we know about where she actually was, and who with. It sounds like she may not have been with her family at the time (I've wondered whether she was sent to KL to be a lady in waiting for a while; this was common for highborn girls and would create a parallel with figures like Anne Boleyn), since they didn't seem to find out until later.

What I want to know is how accurate Ned's fever dream recollection of the ToJ showdown is. I get the impression that people here (not naming names, this is an impression from multiple posts) that people are taking the scene as gospel that that's how it was, when I know I've read that GRRM has pointed out that it was a fever dream and therefore the actual events may not have happened that way.

Also, does abduction and rape have to me mutually inclusive? I know we don't know exactly how Rhaegar and Lyanna ended up together, but I don't think abduction can be ruled out. I think it's the most likely scenario, as in abduction = taken at sword point, and I figure that swords had to have been drawn for the tale to be told that she was abducted (as I doubt that I highborn lady would have been alone wherever she was at the time). However, I don't think that Rhaegar abducting Lyanna automatically means he raped her, nor does it mean that Lyanna cannot have loved him or grown to love him, or even that she was totally unwilling when she was taken.

There were definitely no wraiths or shadow swords and no storm of rose petals across the sky. Also, there was no Lyanna screaming "Eddard" , she always adressed him as "Ned" and that is Vayon Poole's voice, trying to wake Ned.

The parts which are real are stated at the beginning of the dream, "as it had been in life" - Ned and his six companions, seven against three KG.

The dialogue almost certainly didn't go that exactly like that. It is written like stuff of legends, not the way normal people speak - but this in no way detracts from its significance. What is being said is the gist of what happened, and provides crucial information. That's why it is analysed almost word by word.